The role of self-concept in cross-cultural communication

Abstract

Empirical evidence supports the notion that communication behaviors in intercultural encounters are effectively extensions of cultural values as well as epistemologies. Study 1 established communication behaviors of Asians and New Zealanders (NZs) as consistent with verticalcollectivism and horizontal-individualism, respectively. In particular, argumentativeness is positively related to independent self-construal and negatively related to interdependent self-construal. This supports Markus and Kitayama's self-construal theory. Study 2 showed that NZs exhibited more idiocentric and argumentative behavior while Asians displayed more sociocentric and less argumentative behavior during two actual interactions; specifically, participants diverged in their communication styles to be more consistent with their cultural values during intercultural interactions.Analyses of decision outcomes provide support that culture moderates cognitive consistency behaviors such that NZs exhibited more inconsistency-reduction behaviors, which is rooted in adherence to non-contradiction. In contrast, Asians exhibited more inconsistency-support behaviors, suggesting that naïve dialecticism rooted in acceptance of contradiction is customary in Asian social interaction.Key words: Intercultural communication, Values, Self-Concept, Argumentativeness, Dialecticism, Idiocentric style, Sociocentric style. Self-Concept in Cross-Cultural Communication 3 Communication Style as Extensions of Internalized Cultural Values and EpistemologyThe topic of cross-cultural communication has received some well-deserved attention in the literature in the past (Adair, Okumura & Brett, 2001;Limaye & Victor, 1991;Lindsley 1999), and recently due to the changes in the world's workforce; now large percentages of a nation's workforce come from a variety of cultural backgrounds (Okoro & Washington, 2012;MacKenzie & Forde, 2009). Prescriptions for effective communication in intercultural encounters often suggest adapting one's behavior to that of the other culture, however, empirical evidence for actual behaviors and effectiveness of adaptive strategies is still equivocal (Gallois, Ogay & Giles 2004;Francis, 1991;Thomas & Ravlin, 1995;Tse, Francis & Walls, 1994). In fact, Adair et al.'s (2001) Cultural Values of Individualism and CollectivismConsistent with previous research (Gudykunst et al., 1996;Kim et al., 2001;Pekerti & Thomas, 2003;Sanchez-Burks et al., 2003;Singelis & Brown, 1995;Suzuki & Rancer, 1994), we predict that culture influences communication behaviors in different situations. We adopted the vertical and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectivism to differentiate our cross-cultural sample and base our predictions due to the broader variation of possible cultural profiles: verticalcollectivism (V-C) and horizontal-collectivism (H-C); vertical-individualism (V-I) and horizontalSelf-Concept in Cross-Cultural Communication 4 individualism (H-I). In addition, research indicates that the polarity that emerges from the most sophistica...

Locals’ Bidimensional Acculturation Model

“…Interdependent selves are more motivated to conform their behaviour to situational and role demands (Torelli, 2006) and they are more accepting of inconsistency among self-elements than are independent selves (Pekerti & Thomas, 2015). As such, Asians may incorporate aspects of diverse cultures to create an inconsistent/context dependent hybrid identity, resulting in an orthogonal association between national culture maintenance and multicultural adaptation.…”

A Conceptual Framework to Explain Transition of Intercultural Communication Conflict, Social Environment and Personality

“…Understanding leading communication types used in various cultures is a significant stage for understanding behaviours' of individuals who are from different cultural backgrounds (Pekerti and Thomas, 2015). Although, there are pioneer models, which explain processes of intercultural communication among culturally diverse encounters comprehensively, however, these models may insufficient in understanding of nature of intercultural interactions due to the individual's preferred behaviours, which are unpredictable in different situations and social environments (Pekerti and Thomas, 2015;Claeson, 2014;Toomey et al, 2013).…”

“…Although, there are pioneer models, which explain processes of intercultural communication among culturally diverse encounters comprehensively, however, these models may insufficient in understanding of nature of intercultural interactions due to the individual's preferred behaviours, which are unpredictable in different situations and social environments (Pekerti and Thomas, 2015;Claeson, 2014;Toomey et al, 2013). As such, Laurent (1983) found that individuals from multicultural social environments exhibit in characteristics of their own culture obviously, however individuals from monocultures did not.…”

“…As such, Laurent (1983) found that individuals from multicultural social environments exhibit in characteristics of their own culture obviously, however individuals from monocultures did not. Hereby, individuals incline to rely on interior indicators for guidance in different social environments (Pekerti and Thomas, 2015).…”

“…Furthermore, similarities (associated positively) or dissimilarities (associated negatively) of social attractions and interrelationships of members in social groups have been correlated with individual's competence, socioeconomic status and enjoyments (Wells and Aicher, 2013). In short, when individuals interact with different cultures, they have a choice of using either an adaptive strategy or not (Pekerti and Thomas, 2015).…”